Trump announces policy banning transgender military service

[Anonymous]

I can't wait until the know-nothing Trump supporters switch to the inevitable next step of this terrible argument: we are banning them to protect them; it's for their own good.

You want to know why coastal elites look down on you? Because you are bigots, and you want us to all have to live in your bigoted world. Get outside of your damn bubble.

[Anonymous]

Are people here okay with black people serving alongside white people? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

Are people here okay with women serving alongside men? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

Are people here okay with gay and lesbian men and women serving alongside hetersexual service members? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people here okay with black people serving alongside white people? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

Are people here okay with women serving alongside men? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

Are people here okay with gay and lesbian men and women serving alongside hetersexual service members? That used to be thought to affect unit cohesion.

You KNOW how Trump supporters are going to answer these questions

[Anonymous]

How many posters on this thread actually know someone transgender? I do, more than one including my brother. Do people realize that trans doesn't have one single definition, that some individuals do not get gender reassignment surgery, or bottom surgery or facial surgery, etc? Who will decide in this case who is and isn't trans? Will it just include the people who want to go all the way to reassignment, or who want hormones or who may dress ambiguous? Is a woman who looks too "butch" gay or is she trans? Or neither?

This type of rhetoric is a human rights issues. It grants permission for discrimination and abuse. I feel there is just no decency left in this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFS these people want to serve their country. They are not joining up so they can get surgery paid for or try to hook up with members of their unit.

Btw the military validates PLENTY of low-income, young, white, males. No one is claiming the military EXISTS to provide that validation, but it's there.

Low income black males
Low income Hispanic males
Low income black females
Low income Hispanic females



My point is nearly everyone in the military has a sense of pride and yes, validation, for being military, regardless of background, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation. The PP I'm originally quoting seems to think that the validation that comes from being military is only a negative if it's the transgendered folks who are experiencing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approximately 250 Transgenders are in the Military of hundreds of thousands in a country of 340 million. Why is this even a story... meh!

I suspect a lot of people were enlisting in the hopes of having DOD pay for the transition. There have always been people who enlisted for medical care. Years ago, I knew someone who enlisted because his wife had cancer. Very sad. She was young. He did stay in after she passed and was an asset to the service. I also have known of others who did this. The data would be difficult to find, but I personally know of several who stayed in because of medical issues in their families.

Oh I have an awesome idea! Let's ensure everyone has access to health care, and then people won't need to join the military in order to get medical care!

I have another awesome idea, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never said that Americans should have access to health care.

Actually it does... welfare encompasses healthcare, as does liberty.

LOL, sure it does. Please enlighten me on which Amendment of the 10 where it states this specific requirement?

How about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...you think 'life' doesn't cover healthcare? Or only so much as it forces women to take pregnancies to term?

Life in so far as protection from artificial harm. Meaning the government will protect you from artificial threats of life, but not natural ones. Also, the phrase you quoted is not in our constitution, it's part of the declaration of independence, which is not a document of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approximately 250 Transgenders are in the Military of hundreds of thousands in a country of 340 million. Why is this even a story... meh!

I suspect a lot of people were enlisting in the hopes of having DOD pay for the transition. There have always been people who enlisted for medical care. Years ago, I knew someone who enlisted because his wife had cancer. Very sad. She was young. He did stay in after she passed and was an asset to the service. I also have known of others who did this. The data would be difficult to find, but I personally know of several who stayed in because of medical issues in their families.

Oh I have an awesome idea! Let's ensure everyone has access to health care, and then people won't need to join the military in order to get medical care!

I have another awesome idea, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never said that Americans should have access to health care.

Actually it does... welfare encompasses healthcare, as does liberty.

LOL, sure it does. Please enlighten me on which Amendment of the 10 where it states this specific requirement?

How about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...you think 'life' doesn't cover healthcare? Or only so much as it forces women to take pregnancies to term?

Life in so far as protection from artificial harm. Meaning the government will protect you from artificial threats of life, but not natural ones. Also, the phrase you quoted is not in our constitution, it's part of the declaration of independence, which is not a document of law.

Read the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. It's pretty explicit about Congress's power to text to promote the general welfare. Conservatives love to ignore that bit because it doesn't conform to their preordained dogma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Via Twitter naturally.

I cannot believe he went there right now when he is so beleaguered by problems of his own making already.



https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472

Military has always been able to pick who they want.

It makes no sense to include people that are dealing with this. Just not worth the risk. They will have to find jobs elsewhere. Join the peace corps if you want to serve your country.

[jsteele]

If Trump was hoping that this would be a wedge issue to use against Democrats, it may have backfired. Republicans such as Jodi Ernst, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch have come out in opposition to Trump's move. Ernst, from Iowa and Hatch, from Utah, are particularly interesting given their very conservative political leanings and the states they represent. These are not coastal liberals. Hatch is up for reelection and Trump may have just wedged him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Via Twitter naturally.

I cannot believe he went there right now when he is so beleaguered by problems of his own making already.



https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472

Military has always been able to pick who they want.

It makes no sense to include people that are dealing with this. Just not worth the risk. They will have to find jobs elsewhere. Join the peace corps if you want to serve your country.

JFC - this isn't even the policy the military wanted or thought they were getting. This is just stupid DJT making a stupid decision out of nowhere, with no advice or buy-in from the affected parties, and announcing it in a tweet. Forget even if this is a good policy or a bad policy - I happen to think it is a bad policy kicking out folks who want to serve for no other reason than that they are transgender, but leave that aside. Shouldn't the military have been, like, consulted? Or had a briefing letting them know what changes were coming that would affect them? This moron with no leadership skills is just determined to drive his little fire truck through everything, isn't he, just because he can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approximately 250 Transgenders are in the Military of hundreds of thousands in a country of 340 million. Why is this even a story... meh!

I suspect a lot of people were enlisting in the hopes of having DOD pay for the transition. There have always been people who enlisted for medical care. Years ago, I knew someone who enlisted because his wife had cancer. Very sad. She was young. He did stay in after she passed and was an asset to the service. I also have known of others who did this. The data would be difficult to find, but I personally know of several who stayed in because of medical issues in their families.

Oh I have an awesome idea! Let's ensure everyone has access to health care, and then people won't need to join the military in order to get medical care!

I have another awesome idea, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never said that Americans should have access to health care.

Actually it does... welfare encompasses healthcare, as does liberty.

LOL, sure it does. Please enlighten me on which Amendment of the 10 where it states this specific requirement?

How about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...you think 'life' doesn't cover healthcare? Or only so much as it forces women to take pregnancies to term?

Life in so far as protection from artificial harm. Meaning the government will protect you from artificial threats of life, but not natural ones. Also, the phrase you quoted is not in our constitution, it's part of the declaration of independence, which is not a document of law.

Read the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. It's pretty explicit about Congress's power to text to promote the general welfare. Conservatives love to ignore that bit because it doesn't conform to their preordained dogma.

Don't forget the enomuerated powers

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If Trump was hoping that this would be a wedge issue to use against Democrats, it may have backfired. Republicans such as Jodi Ernst, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch have come out in opposition to Trump's move. Ernst, from Iowa and Hatch, from Utah, are particularly interesting given their very conservative political leanings and the states they represent. These are not coastal liberals. Hatch is up for reelection and Trump may have just wedged him.

It's not a wedge, rather a distraction bone as he is a master manipulator and the media pounces. Meanwhile Sessions will announce a criminal probe of leakers, DWS is getting nervous and his Obamacare promise is being dismantled on Capitol Hill.

[Anonymous]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

Mattis apparently wanted to hold off on what the House Republicans were even asking for - which was a rule saying the Pentagon wouldn't pay for sex reassignment surgery. They weren't even asking for transgender people to be barred altogether.

And Mattis said the relevant parties needed time to really study the issue and make recommendations. But nope, DJT with his little hands and big twitter decided to just go make some shit up.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If Trump was hoping that this would be a wedge issue to use against Democrats, it may have backfired. Republicans such as Jodi Ernst, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch have come out in opposition to Trump's move. Ernst, from Iowa and Hatch, from Utah, are particularly interesting given their very conservative political leanings and the states they represent. These are not coastal liberals. Hatch is up for reelection and Trump may have just wedged him.

Interesting. It seemed unlike Trump because it was a coherent statement spread across a few tweets, unlike his usual ranting. Smells of Pence.

I think regardless of who it was who crafted this though, that person/people know that this can function as a distraction. When Trump et al usually go this hard at a distraction, something big is about to drop. So any wedging, event attempts at wedging to use against Dems, was likely inadvertent and as you pointed out, may have backfired.

I wonder what news we're going to get tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:If Trump was hoping that this would be a wedge issue to use against Democrats, it may have backfired. Republicans such as Jodi Ernst, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch have come out in opposition to Trump's move. Ernst, from Iowa and Hatch, from Utah, are particularly interesting given their very conservative political leanings and the states they represent. These are not coastal liberals. Hatch is up for reelection and Trump may have just wedged him.

It's not a wedge, rather a distraction bone as he is a master manipulator and the media pounces. Meanwhile Sessions will announce a criminal probe of leakers, DWS is getting nervous and his Obamacare promise is being dismantled on Capitol Hill.

Yeah, 17 dimensional chess. Sure thing. That's what this is.

Haven't we been disabused yet of the idea that he is intentionally doing anything except tweeting about whatever shiny thing happens to be before him?